Tim Cook: Apple donated $50 million to hospitals, $50 million to Project(RED)

Giving by Apple has been on the rise since Tim Cook took over as CEO.

Apple has reportedly donated $50 million to Stanford University hospitals as part of its recent philanthropic strategy shift. The numbers were revealed during Apple's recent Town Hall meeting with employees, according to sources speaking to The Verge, with $25 million each going to a new main hospital building and a new children's hospital.

Apple often holds Town Hall meetings following major announcements or at the end of a particularly successful quarter in order to bring employees up to speed on the company and keep morale high. In this case, Apple CEO Tim Cook hosted a Town Hall meeting immediately following the announcement of the company's first quarter 2012 results, which Apple described as the "highest quarterly revenue and earnings ever."

According to The Verge, a decent chunk of the meeting was spent discussing the new philanthropic efforts introduced by Cook after he took Steve Jobs' place as CEO. In an e-mail to employees last September, Cook said the company would begin matching employee donations to nonprofits up to $10,000 annually—a stark change from the Jobs-era Apple that appeared to rank charitable donations as a low priority. One thing Jobs did focus on, however, was Apple's participation in the consumer-facing Product(RED) program aimed at AIDS education and research. On that front, Cook apparently told employees that Apple has given more than $50 million to that effort as well since the beginning of the partnership in 2006.

Interesting... while this is impressive, of course, I can imagine why Steve might have preferred to keep charitable donations on the down-low. Easier to have everyone know nothing and assume you're secretly evil, than to try to explain why there's $50M to spend on Stanford hospitals but not, say, improving working conditions in China.

Well its a start and a lot more then Steve ever did. I certainly would like to see Tim get tougher with China on its labor laws. Apple own study shows their is problems and its been backed up by countless news media reports. I would bet if Apple threatened to take its assembly business elsewhere that Foxconn would shore up its labor practices better. Same goes for Dell, HP and Microsoft. All of which I understand use Foxconn.

Interesting... while this is impressive, of course, I can imagine why Steve might have preferred to keep charitable donations on the down-low. Easier to have everyone know nothing and assume you're secretly evil, than to try to explain why there's $50M to spend on Stanford hospitals but not, say, improving working conditions in China.

Interesting... while this is impressive, of course, I can imagine why Steve might have preferred to keep charitable donations on the down-low. Easier to have everyone know nothing and assume you're secretly evil, than to try to explain why there's $50M to spend on Stanford hospitals but not, say, improving working conditions in China.

Publicizing philanthropy is a no-win for any company. Someone will always think you're not doing enough, or assume you're just doing it for the goodwill, or whatever. I think Jobs has been quoted as saying that giving money away (sensibly) is much more work than earning it.

And as far as improving working conditions in China, Apple has done more for workers in it's supply chain than any other tech company by far. But that's not philanthropy, that's just good business. Apple needs those workers to be willing (and able) to meet their production demands.

First four comments all negative (one appears to be sarcastic). Apple has been criticized for not being an active participator in donations to causes. Now that some of the giving has been publicized it is criticized for doing so. I suppose if they gave 50 billion dollars it might satisfy some of the critics though I doubt it.

Good for them. I'm not a fan of the company myself, but I'm very glad to see the change of attitude towards charity since Cook has taken over.

Even if Jobs did really feel that charity was something to keep private (which I'm not convinced of), in my mind that isn't a valid reason for the company not to at least offer matching funds for employee donations (something that only changed after Cook took over.)

Really? The most profitable public company in the world. The fastest growth ever seen. All that.... and they can only spare a messily 50 million over 6 years? Wow. Nice.

Apple needs to start being humble. Start giving in the billions. If not GIVING then setting the money aside funding research/aid, as I feel just handing a large check is never good. But of course, end of the day, this is PR hype. They rather save their precious pennies and not give their workers decent work environments.

Glad to see they are giving. Very glad to see they match employee contributions. That spreads charity out across a lot of different areas. I don't care about the publicity one way or the other. I am just glad to see they aren't making a big deal out of charity that benefits them. Like giving away computers to schools. Self serving charity seems slimy to me.

Am I the only one who thinks charity is best done quietly and for its own sake than splashed all over the press to get praise?

Internal communications to staff that end up leaked are hardly "splashed all over the press."

That's not what I meant. I was talking about criticism from the press and the public that Apple doesn't donate to charity. What should matter is that they donate whether or not we know about it. People assume that they don't simply because they don't make public announcements.

Am I the only one who thinks charity is best done quietly and for its own sake than splashed all over the press to get praise?

It's a double edge sword. Apple keeps their giving quiet and people scream they're being greedy and not doing anything. If they announce they've made donations people call them attention whores.

That's partly what I was trying to get at. I have friends who give to charity, but always do so anonymously when given the choice (some charities recognize donors in their newsletters, for example, and they give the option to remain anonymous.)

The Product RED charity is ... suspect. I think they're just counting the fact that they made a couple red ipod nanos and gave $10 of the proceeds of each sale to the charity (hardly a loss). It's an iffy charity, and seemed to be more of a marketing move than an actual charitable donation.

The Product RED charity is ... suspect. I think they're just counting the fact that they made a couple red ipod nanos and gave $10 of the proceeds of each sale to the charity (hardly a loss). It's an iffy charity, and seemed to be more of a marketing move than an actual charitable donation.

Weren't they a premium which means they passed their donation to consumers like a tax? Apple is far greedier than Microsoft, they just get away with it more since they are still viewed as an underdog.

The Product RED charity is ... suspect. I think they're just counting the fact that they made a couple red ipod nanos and gave $10 of the proceeds of each sale to the charity (hardly a loss). It's an iffy charity, and seemed to be more of a marketing move than an actual charitable donation.

Weren't they a premium which means they passed their donation to consumers like a tax? Apple is far greedier than Microsoft, they just get away with it more since they are still viewed as an underdog.

The timing of the annoucement says "Hey, we don't just singe Chinese workers faces off with explosive aluminum dust like the NY Times says. We also care enough to give money to hospitals." Known as a PR move to deflect criticism of company practices. Pretty much standard operating procedure for ginormous corporations.

The Product RED charity is ... suspect. I think they're just counting the fact that they made a couple red ipod nanos and gave $10 of the proceeds of each sale to the charity (hardly a loss). It's an iffy charity, and seemed to be more of a marketing move than an actual charitable donation.

Weren't they a premium which means they passed their donation to consumers like a tax? Apple is far greedier than Microsoft, they just get away with it more since they are still viewed as an underdog.

The Product RED charity is ... suspect. I think they're just counting the fact that they made a couple red ipod nanos and gave $10 of the proceeds of each sale to the charity (hardly a loss). It's an iffy charity, and seemed to be more of a marketing move than an actual charitable donation.

Weren't they a premium which means they passed their donation to consumers like a tax? Apple is far greedier than Microsoft, they just get away with it more since they are still viewed as an underdog.

I think the problem is more that the a lot of the money doesn't do anything helpful, and that a lot of the money that goes to research is going into patented drugs, so it's real effect is improving the bottom line for pharmaceutical companies.

Am I the only one who thinks charity is best done quietly and for its own sake than splashed all over the press to get praise?

I'd normally agree, but Cook wasn't issuing this as a press release (although he must have known it would get out). This was an internal memo to the employees who work for him... I'm sure they appreciated knowing that their company was "giving back" to the local community (Stanford hospital is not far from the main Apple Campus if I'm not mistaken). Don't think we can really criticize him for making this "public" - it isn't like he got Chiat/Day to craft an add campaign to announce it, he just sent an internal company memo.

New Rule: Anyone criticizing the amount of money donated to charity must also disclose how much money they gave to charity last year and what percentage of their income that is.

Second New Rule: Those making snide comments about working conditions of Chinese workers must disclose what electronics they currently own, so that they can be made aware of the working conditions of the Chinese workers who made those products (probably worse off). To be fair, the posters will then have the opportunity to amend their snide comments to include those companies.

Weren't they a premium which means they passed their donation to consumers like a tax? Apple is far greedier than Microsoft, they just get away with it more since they are still viewed as an underdog.

The assertion that Apple is greedier than Microsoft has always puzzled me.

Even today, with Apple growing like a beanstalk and Microsoft basically just treading water, Microsoft still has higher profit margins than Apple. Why is it okay for Microsoft to take a large margin on software but not okay for Apple to take a large margin on hardware (that hardware selling mainly by virtue of the software it's running)?

I'm a big proponent of charitable giving, but I can't say I'm a fan of CEOs raiding the firm's coffers to fund pet causes. Why not distribute that 50mn as dividends and let Apple shareholders decide what they want to give to charity?

If one of my employees "donated" company funds to pay his ailing mother's medical bills, it would be money laundering. But when Tim Cook donates Apple shareholder money to Project(RED), it's philanthropy.